Since applicants have asked for $28 billion, when the broadband stimulus funds available in the funding round total around $4.3 billion, one already can predict that there will be more entities unhappy than happy about the final awards. Especially unhappy are rural telecom providers who cannot apply because of the definitions used to describe "remote" locations.
For that same reason, it might not be rational to look at where proposals are from, on a state-by-state basis, except for purposes of assuring that some funds are disbursed in every state. Nor will it make sense to evaluate proposals based on ubiquity of platform.
Mobile or satellite networks might have wide footprints. But there still are places where broadband buying lags the national average.
It likely makes more sense to look at proposals at the county level or community level. Even the satellite proposals are specifically targeting a limited number of jurisdications and areas where broadband penetration is low.
Some proposals will be better than others. But most of the proposals seem to ask for relatively small amounts of money. That likely is a good sign, as few small organizations can manage a sudden infusion of money and work very efficiently.
Some proposals do seem weak on the "cost-benefit" front. But that's why the evaluation process is so important. Reviewers are supposed to sort better proposals from weaker ones. Reviewers likely also know their decisions will come under very-close scrutiny. One therefore can hope for a rational outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment